Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 20, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT

1:00 pm
the d.r. request or anything. but just wanted a review of that. we do have some financial interest f you want to call it that, a couple of properties away. president olague: thank you. >> thank you. again, david lindsey, project standoff. the plan is to extend the roof deck on the one-story garage at the located of a rear of a four-story house. the garage is within the yard and considered noncomplying. and various administrator interpretations of planning section 188 which governs noncomplying structures allow decking to be placed upon the flat roof of a noncomplying drunk driver providing it is virtually -- provide it is virtually flat and any areas must be open and no higher than required by a building code. such decks are exempt from
1:01 pm
section 311 neighborhood notification. however, notification is required to be provided to residents and owners of any properties that boarder the subject property. the project is 11 feet deep, 21 1/2 feet wide to be located behind an existing deck. the new deck area would be surrounded by a 42-inch high tempered glass railing, the minimum height required by the building code. the d.r. filer with the property perpendicular to and north of the project property and his concern is that it will affect his privacy. the residential design team reviewed the project and concluded that the project that would not create a significant adverse impact to additional properties including the d.r. requester's property and any
1:02 pm
impacts on privacy are within acceptable limits for a dense urban environment such as rush and hill. the r.d.p. noted that the d.r. requester's property is 15 feet away from the proposed deck if department's recommendation is do not take d.e.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> requester? >> before we begin, i would like to submit letters of opposition from property owners who could not be here today and the variance requested by the project sponsor for the recent construction as completed recently in 2010. and i respect 2753 larkin street and representing the surrounding neighbors as well.
1:03 pm
and i would like to begin by describing the history of the property and the restrictions with planning and zoning and the project sponsor has completed the 6,000 square foot home and is attempting to avoid restrictions and concerns with the neighborhood with the permit. and in 1993, a variance was sought and concessions were made to accommodate the rear yard with lack of park at the property. the properties adjacent had the garages in front of their homes in larkin street. it was placed on the property
1:04 pm
then and unless expansion is authorized by the zoning administrator with the new variance request there and with the procedures of the planning code allowed in that report. and that restricts it. in 2009 a variance was sought to extend the entire rear house and create roof decks located virtually or entirely in the rear yard. the roof decks they want to expand now is located entirely in the rear yard that was reviewed variance hearing in 2009. he stated the project lessens intrusion and creating more usable space without detrimental affects and consistent scale and texture throughout the neighborhood outreach and requested the exception be built
1:05 pm
to be built to build the project as drawn. and during the neighborhood outreach i met with the owners of the property and planned for a living roof to address privacy concerns and with the current rear yard and the owner agreed to this in whiting and in exchange for the permit and the 311 proposal and nor has the space been shown as anything but garage space with regard to the zoning administrator with more
1:06 pm
restrictive controls shall apply. and recently been sold to a new owner who is disregarding this agreement with the privacy and is attempting to circumvent and intent express on the variation and agreement for permits. and the historic building and completely remodelled the 6,000 square foot home in late 2010 and with the new roof deck and i'm sorry, 40 feet over all the neighbors and offering the owner a hot tub with panoramic views of the bay and the garage in the rear yard excavated to an underground parking garage with
1:07 pm
a deck placed over it located entirely in the year yard and is already out of character for o protruding further out and to expand the second roof deck even further. i request one or two minutes since i am speaking for multiple -- >> there is only one d.r. requester on this item and everyone has the same amount of time. >> i will get the two minutes afterward? >> yes, of course, for the rebuttal, of course you have two minutes. you have five minutes now and two minutes of rebuttal afterwards. that is how it work. and if there are additional requesters, you each get five minutes each. that is how it works. and i would like to open it up for any supporters of the d.r. requester. seeing none, project sponsor.
1:08 pm
>> thank you commissioners. i am the architect that is representing the project sponsor. >> there are several things that are misrepresented here that it is noncompliant and if had been, it would not be supported by the planning department as we sit here right now. and the purpose is as small as add tile and railing to an existing roof service to make it usable as an occupied rear roof deck and no increase in building volume and expansion in the structure and no way meets the base review of the exceptional extraordinary circumstances and the expansion of the new owner of 2709 market is to take the unused roof service and create usable open space for the occupational use of the young children and this property and the limited dimensions set the landscape atten an elevation
1:09 pm
that makes it difficult to use especially for young children. by comparison t proposed deck area outside the interior play room is more useful and practical for young children under supervision. and to occupy the proposed deck with landscape planters up to the deck level. the proposal is entirely code compliant and meets the residential guidelines and the d.r. requester misinterpreted the code requirements as well as the planning code section he cited. planning staff has found compliance and confirm with the interpretations as well and were carefully considered and the distance between structures and in particular the window he is concerned about are over 6 feet at the closest point and the limited use period and mutual desire for privacy and although there is limited sharing, they
1:10 pm
have offered additional screening to alleviate the d.r. requester's concerns. please note that the d.r. request represents from additional neighbors but only the d.r. requester has filed and the immediate adjacent neighbors are no part of any neighbor listed on here. the deck and property sits here and the signatures on the properties below and on the lowest part of san francisco. and pr pro posed modifications and no measurable impact and with the glass rail and the lightness of expression and to minimize the appearance of the rails and the project sponsor
1:11 pm
intends to add landscaping to open taller amounts along the edge of the property. and this critical useable outdoor space transforms the unfinished roof service and creates usable space and no debt krimental effect and -- and no debt debt detrimental effects. >> the d.r. requester may have your two minutes now. >> there are disagreements interpreting the code and i will leave it to your authority and there and with the surrounding
1:12 pm
homes and with the specific property very similar reasons and the letter ins opposition i won't vied through with the surrounding property and enjoys the privacy created by the required rear yards of numerous properties of the russian hill northwest that shields the person from the tranquil hallways and created enormous living space in the middle and requires the open space. my personal property at larkin is a modest 1600 square foot condo which is perpendicular and adjacent to the rear yard and deck to create a living space 15 feet above the ground at the property line and the sponsor would hover over the entryway where my children and family use and additionally create a direct line of sight into my entire deck and my home including the kitchen, living room, and dining room will have a direct line of sight from the project sponsor into my home.
1:13 pm
my wife will be breast feeding my new child in three months and where she does is this is in the living area and the sponsor will be peering into us and there is already a significant impact on privacy and the current rear deck requested last year slightly protects the line of sight into the property and there is no reason to change that now and nor should the planning commission allow it. the alternative sponsors and the surrounding neighborhoods all endorsed with the roof which was originally proposed in the variance last year and sponsor should be able to find a place for his children to play in the 6,000 square foot home with 700 square feet of exterior deck thank you.use. project sponsor?
1:14 pm
>> the 15-foot easement that exists between the edge of 2709 larkin and the properties that border the property on this side. so the 15 feet really gets to the back of the garage and the living space is back at this level. and it is as much in our interest to have privacy between the properties as it is in his interest and is our intention to do so via planting screening, garage and cpussed as a rear didn't and existed before mr. stafford property the property and doing nothing more than occupying the roof of it and the code compliance and sensitive way. and we appreciate your support. >> thank you. president olague: public hearing is closed. commissioners? >> and can you describe how you
1:15 pm
intend to hand it will railing? i don't think i quite got it. >> the railing is the frameless glass railing and transparent glass rail on three sides with a 1 inch by 1 inch for the lightness and reduction as it appears from the alley. commissioner moore: you probably have heard and was saying that this suspect as high on the top of the roof as we normally do and are starting to discourage using glass as railings for bird ordinance and i think we should be consistent on that and that is probably one of the first things that would go away. and we are concerned about birds hitting these glass railings and i think this would hold for this particular building as well. >> the railing is at the bottom 12 feet above the ground. commissioner moore: it doesn't
1:16 pm
matter. i personally believe that a railing 12 feet off the ground is even more visible and adds to the massiveness of the structure if it is a roof deck, it should read like such and for me a solid glass etch condition is nothing i could really feel comfortable with. but i am curious how the other commissioners think about this particular project. >> commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: it seems to me this is only an addition over a garage space that isn't being used at the present time. i realize it does create a presence of people there that is not presently possible because -- again, the privacy issue is one that in a dense urban environment it is hard to address that issue. there will be situations where people are always having an opportunity to look in the window one place or another. but i don't think we have ever
1:17 pm
had a situation where we've disallowed an addition strictly on the privacy issue as long as it meetses the other requirements. in terms of the railings, close to the ground and i am sure birds can find a way to fly into almost anything, but i don't know if whatever would be acceptable to the project sponsor and the neighbors would be the highest level of acceptance and if everybody agrees on the glass, i am okay and if they agree on rails or other type of thing that would be more acceptable to project sponsor and to the neighbors and then i would be willing to go with that. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: this is an interesting case that many projects we see, people count balconies as open space.
1:18 pm
it is interesting because the garage in the year regard and the year yard with a variance in the open space and then they want a roof deck on top and to the extent that we actually often will take into conviction balconies and properties and open space and in some ways is enhancing the rear yard effect. it is interesting in my view that the feeling of the d.r. requester is it that doesn't do that but creates more of the rear yard feeling that doesn't exist now with the garage being there and the expansion of the roof deck and not the garage it which was the subject on the property. in terms of the clear railing and supportive of protecting the bird and sometimes the neighbors
1:19 pm
prefer the clear from the light and i don't know from the level it is that the project sponsor's house if there is an impact and if there is any sort of glass -- i think there is glass that has stuff in it that you can't see that birds can see. there is some sort of glass i thought that existed. because i know that glass can provide extra light and makes it les visible so whaef plantings and stuff would be more visible and the railing would be visible for what we want and less intrusive to the neighbors and maybe that would be the direction to go in with that. and in terms of the privacy, i guess it's always surprising to me ef time somebody proposes a roof deck, this is a common issue of privacy and with all the roof decks in the city, i scarcely see people on the roof
1:20 pm
decks for all the fears that exist about them. and they are highly underutilized except for a few major o indicating. i don't typically think people spend their time wanting to stare into their neighbor's home. i typically don't believe that is people's intent or desire in that regard. and it is a tough thing and urban environment and a lot of buildings are very close. i have lived in apartments where the person in the other unit and i could look right into the other unit. and and to approve the project as proposed. >> not take the d.r. and approve the project as proposeed. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i am going to oppose the motion. i think we should say something about the railings. i have had the experience when i was growing up of birds fly into windows that are 6 feet and that is what i found dead birds, 6
1:21 pm
feet, 10 feet, so they can fly low and --. >> we could just say that glass could be that oh glass. commissioner sugaya: if we could word it that the project sponsor works with staff on some kind of bird resi tant or whatever you want to call it glass railing and/or an open railing of some kind. >> and it doesn't take the d.r. to do that. >> i will change the motion to make it other glass or surface that is bird friendly. >> still second. olague r commissioner moore. commissioner moore: not until someone wants to call them up. president olague: someone might call you up. commissioner moore: again, i am not sure if i heard it correctly and perhaps it can be clarified. the history on this particular project, if i heard correctly
1:22 pm
and ask you to confirm is a little troublesome to me. even this was ormgally approved as a garage -- originally approved as a garage with a roof on it and i think i see a significant deviation from that approval given all of a sudden that somebody wants to add a balcony which is different from a patch of green roof and the visual amenity and very much in keeping with high density neighborhoods when the applicant already has sufficient open space adjacent to it on multiple the amount of balcony space or terrace space is 600 square feet and that is larger than some of the units some of us are living in. so i find it a lil t bit grabby to tell you the truth unless i misinterpret the permit history. i am very hesitant to support this as sequential permitting to just get more.
1:23 pm
and i would have to basically oppose the project primarily on this permitting history and the fact that with the previous approval more than sufficient roof deck open space was approved and what constitutes as single family unit of significantly large size. >> to clarify on the previous variances on the property, the garage extension at the rear of the building was approved by variance in 1993. it did not include decking above it. that my understanding. commissioner moore: we are having sequential permitting in the definition that you are using it. >> that have 18 years ago that the garage was -- commissioner moore: that doesn't change the fact it is still sequential permitting because the original intent was a gramming and if there was discussion of a green roof at some point when green became
1:24 pm
more chic than it was then -- >> i don't believe there was any discussion of a green roof in 1993. i think the d.r. filer mentioned that for the 6-foot extension of the rear of the building it and nothing to do with the garage. commissioner moore: okay. president olague: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i also have a little problem with the sequential permitting. however, just to explain, it may only be 12 feet off the ground but -- >> i need your microphone adjusted. >> but the very fact there will be planting in back of the proposed glass is even worse because they see through it for birds. and if it was totally clear, which i would get, it would be less of a problem. but there are -- there is
1:25 pm
products out there so either that or posts. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: in terms of some of the concerns raised, it is a little hard to plan 17 or 18 year ahead what you may want to do with something and the other thing is we are always very concerned about garage structures that are free standing and kind of sit out there and we're very much opposed to this and this is in the reverse of the back of the house, but something like a deck or balcony and enlivens it and making it look a little better. i wanted to talk to the d.r. requester if you would like to come up for a second and weigh in on the type of balcony and type of railing that you would like to see. >> first of all, i would like to
1:26 pm
comment on ms. moore's comment about sesequential permitting. the 1993 variance was for the garage. the 2009 variance which construction ended just six months ago was for the addition of the deck on top of the garage. at that time the deck was created to the current state. it is now application to extend that and literally after the paint has dried. i still feel there is a sequential permitting issue here at stake. as far as conversations with the owner of the property regarding the railing at the placement of that deck on top of the garage in 2009-2010, privacy issues were discussed and addressed with the 42-inch stucco guardrail was created in the current state right now. it is still my belief there is sequential permitting and they just replaced the deck with 42-inch stucco and my recommendation or my request would be that it stays in the current state. if you decide to allow it to extend, i would request that the 42-inch stucco railing be continued to protect the privacy and hopefully the sponsor will
1:27 pm
-- commissioner antonini: thank you for your input. project sponsor, that sounds okay to you to perhaps take up the possibility of keeping the same type of decking or railing that you have extending the stucco railing? >> it is actually. the railing has to be an open railing visually and can be a metal rail or railing of rails or glass but it needs to be open in order to be on the noncompliant portion. otherwise it would require a variance. >> we're happy to install the opaque glass rail that serves the same level of so lidty and the aspects of the glass rail but maintains a level of transparency that i think planning is looking for in this proposition. commissioner miguel: that sounds reasonable and whatever can be worked out is fine with me and
1:28 pm
also a railing with individual slats would be okay with space between it. is that acceptable? >> absolutely. commissioner miguel: that might be another possibility. and presumably the birds will see the rails if they're solid. we're not really talking about the privacy, but something to satisfy the other commissioners interested in bird safe glass or nonglass. >> happy to work with staff to come up with a compliant railing. commissioner moore: i would say that hearing the specific dates and the sequential permission to enlarge, et, that this is for me personally not necessary and desirable. there is provision of all kinds of open space, et, and i think the garage is properly concealed and in place in it own right. if the owner wants to add a green roof, that would be nice,
1:29 pm
but if not, i can not approve the deck as being further extended for this particular garage roof. olague r commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i think what the neighbor is looking for is some kind of obscure railing and if that meets the purposes of bird proofing, i think the architect can work with staff on that. president olague: is that accurate? you mentioned the variance -- >> well, i would want to discuss this with the zoning strarter to, but i think -- with the zoning stra administrator and t obscurity may hamper that so i would want to have that discussion with the zoning


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on